Abstract The article puts forward a case against the nominalist ontology of money, that is, the heterodox notion that moneyness – the quality of being money – is conferred by the money of account. From the nominalist perspective, money is essentially a balance-sheet phenomenon: a credit-debit bookkeeping entity whose origins can be traced back to ancient Near Eastern practices of accounting. This ontological position, which is often erroneously traced back to Keynes’ Treatise, mystifies and obscures the actual history of the money of account as a regime of monetary governance and a mode of speculation that only made sense in the European late medieval context of bimetallism. The article thus provides a critique of monetary nominalism based on Keynes’ reflection on the value of money in the Treatise and the General Theory. In turn, it proceeds to historicize the phenomenon of the money of account, building on the seminal contributions of Marc Bloch and Luigi Einaudi.

中文翻译：

---

将账户货币历史化：对唯名论货币本体论的批判

摘要 本文提出了一个反对货币的唯名论本体论的案例，即货币性——作为货币的品质——是由账户货币赋予的非正统观念。从唯名论的角度来看，货币本质上是一种资产负债表现象：一种贷记借记簿记实体，其起源可以追溯到古代近东的会计实践。这种本体论立场经常被错误地追溯到凯恩斯的论文，它神秘化和模糊了作为货币治理制度和投机模式的账户货币的实际历史，这种历史只有在欧洲中世纪晚期的双金属主义背景下才有意义。因此，本文根据凯恩斯在《论着》和《通论》中对货币价值的反思，对货币唯名论进行了批判。反过来，